any number of factors can affect how the grass courts play. heat, humidity or even lack of humidity.

it was fairly easy to see that the courts were playing relatively fast this year. stats also give a clear clue to the speed of the courts. how fast the ball is traveling and the absolute number of winners and the like.

there were aweful lot of injuries there this year. some could have been career threatening.

they are probably not going to admit they tried to speed up the grass in light of all the falls and all the injuries.

once again how about taking the athletes into account also. they move a lot better than they used to.

nole covers one side to the next with a blink of an eye. why bother giving the athletes any credit. andy murray engulfs the entire court with his sick movement.

before these guys, nobody in history has ever moved like nadal and roger.

the game is just different today. supreme fitness and sublime movement are among the key factors that characterize the top players more often than not.

and with the incredible speed and power of the modern game, it is too risky to rush the net.

herc, u need to leave MTF behind if you really don't care about it. Its really not the point here.

You would like to go away with the grass saying its not viable for the game and yet this game was invented on grass.We have so few tours on grass and having no grass events, would be a death of tennis and I would really stop following tennis.Also it wasn't about the 2nd week thats slowed down but take a look at Wimbly grass 10 years ago for example and Miami and IW how the ball behaved. The high bounce today on these courts is just ridiculous.

The topic was never about S&V but the tendency to attack from these baseliners. A lot of players have been suffering ever since they slowed down courts. Not even dry and hot weather in IW can help offensive players when the ball bounce is so high.

Also Babbs already quoted that article saying they didn't change anything this year at Wimlbedon about the courts.

any number of factors can affect how the grass courts play. heat, humidity or even lack of humidity.

Exactly, and all of those thing you mentioned SHOULDN'T let the ball bounce so high. Even with humidity and wet conditions the ball bounce is low. And if you have heat and dry weather that's when the ball travels the fastest and we have ultra fast court.So why do we have such a high bouncing balls at Wimbledon and not for example in Halle or Newport?

Now take a look at Cincy or Rogers Cup and compare it to Miami and IW. Huuuge difference between the bounce.

Now I really really wouldn't cry about the court speed if I hadn't seen its influence on one of my favorite players. There were many players mentioning it too including Roddick, Navratilova, Safin, Haas, Federer, Hewitt etc etc The players will see and feel the effects better than us watching on TV.

I think the improving racquet/string technology is a big issue. Tennis would be very different if it was still played with wooden racquets. And no, I don't suggest returning to wooden racquets. It would change the game too much and people would complain about bad tennis with bad racquets. But I'd love to freeze the racquet development. We can just imagine the 2050s racquets. I think the racquets are good as they are now.

BUT, if anything like that would be suggested, I guess racquet manufacturers would disagree. They want to make better racquets to keep sales up. And racquets keep on improving.

I love the way grass court looks but 2 week long event wears out the grass. especially the baseline areas. it is also very expensive to maintain on a year around basis.

herc, there's a reason why Haas can play tennis at 35. Grass is not demanding at all. If he was a grinder, he would last that long, and you could hardly blame grass for that. HC is more dangerous.There's also a reason why Fed could play for another couple of years.

I love the way grass court looks but 2 week long event wears out the grass. especially the baseline areas. it is also very expensive to maintain on a year around basis.

herc, there's a reason why Haas can play tennis at 35. Grass is not demanding at all. If he was a grinder, he would last that long, and you could hardly blame grass for that. HC is more dangerous.There's also a reason why Fed could play for another couple of years.

well both of these guys have a very efficient style of play anyway.

also they are constantly working on their fitness. they remain dedicated to the sport.

I love the way grass court looks but 2 week long event wears out the grass. especially the baseline areas. it is also very expensive to maintain on a year around basis.

herc, there's a reason why Haas can play tennis at 35. Grass is not demanding at all. If he was a grinder, he would last that long, and you could hardly blame grass for that. HC is more dangerous.There's also a reason why Fed could play for another couple of years.

well both of these guys have a very efficient style of play anyway.

also they are constantly working on their fitness. they remain dedicated to the sport.

they have a very professional approach to their chosen profession.

exactly, so its up to players. Their ethics and their style of game is what gives them durability not courts.Can't blame the courts for hurting players who like to rally forever and expose their body to the limits.Last man standing tennis is what is hurting the players, not the slippery grass or 'demanding' hc.

Do you see any difference on how they play the game in contrast to Miami for example? This court it's the fastest outdoor HC left on tour, yet the style and nature of tennis being play doesn't change one iota.

Hercules has been on the money but you guys keep ignoring the fundamental factor that's dictating how the game it's being play. These are ATHLETES taking their physical abilities to the max unlike any era before then. In the 90s people used to talk as novelty how Muster was so fit or even Courier before him. Well, today the tour it's full of Musters fitness wise and the top players are beyond that. Look at their legs for god sake, they look like freaking horse.....even a guy like Delpo can run balls down on grass.

IF you tweak the surface speed a couple notches, you will still see baseliner dominate........why I would venture forward to the net on a consistent basis when I can CRUSH forehands from 6 feet behind the court? It makes no sense. Actually, if the speed goes up a little bit too much it will render the game a serve dominated stroke.

When I see a guy like Roger complain about how all the courts play the same, I see a bitter prick who after winning 17 slams on the very same courts that he is now criticizing; can't stand other players having similar success to his own. There was never a problem with grass when Roger was beating hapless Roddick and Hewitt.....as soon a claycourter Rafa challenged him in 2007; suddenly the grass was too slow. Maybe they should invent shoes that keep the grass intact so by the second week you guys can still enjoy it.

Anyways, the player that can win the point with one stroke from the back of the court has not incentive to move forward outside of tactical adjustment and put away shots after creating the space. This has nothing to do with court speed but with the players themselves.

Unless you dial back the technology, the argument for faster courts is mute.

I know y'all are saying: "Now Babs wants wooden racquets and all S&V and all fast grass courts like the early 1970s!!!" That's par for the course.

Sorry folks, but with technology circa 1997, you lose all that control and spin. The power is still there. Variety will become a premium. Variety was en vogue in 1997.

Anyway, as much as I would love to see the technology dialed down, I agree with herc that we aren't going backwards. Technology is going forward, court normalization is going forward, Best of 3 Sets is going forward. As much as y'all would like to see Best of 5 sets return to Masters events, tennis ain't going backwards. Best of 3 is trending.

Do you see any difference on how they play the game in contrast to Miami for example? This court it's the fastest outdoor HC left on tour, yet the style and nature of tennis being play doesn't change one iota.

Hercules has been on the money but you guys keep ignoring the fundamental factor that's dictating how the game it's being play. These are ATHLETES taking their physical abilities to the max unlike any era before then. In the 90s people used to talk as novelty how Muster was so fit or even Courier before him. Well, today the tour it's full of Musters fitness wise and the top players are beyond that. Look at their legs for god sake, they look like freaking horse.....even a guy like Delpo can run balls down on grass.

IF you tweak the surface speed a couple notches, you will still see baseliner dominate........why I would venture forward to the net on a consistent basis when I can CRUSH forehands from 6 feet behind the court? It makes no sense. Actually, if the speed goes up a little bit too much it will render the game a serve dominated stroke.

When I see a guy like Roger complain about how all the courts play the same, I see a bitter prick who after winning 17 slams on the very same courts that he is now criticizing; can't stand other players having similar success to his own. There was never a problem with grass when Roger was beating hapless Roddick and Hewitt.....as soon a claycourter Rafa challenged him in 2007; suddenly the grass was too slow. Maybe they should invent shoes that keep the grass intact so by the second week you guys can still enjoy it.

Anyways, the player that can win the point with one stroke from the back of the court has not incentive to move forward outside of tactical adjustment and put away shots after creating the space. This has nothing to do with court speed but with the players themselves.

the runaway speed of the sport is such that it is simply too risky to rush the net unless you create an actual opportunity for yourself to do so. you can only go in if your ground game sucks or on your own terms.

or you can go in for an element of surprise here and there.

you cant volley what you cant see.

and what about the returns. the returns come back damn near as hard and as fast the serve.

only a fool would rush the net and get his damn wrist shattered trying to volley a ball hit at near 100 MPH with spin. and that is assuming that you even saw the ball in the first place.

as a matter of fact if the courts were, say 25% faster, nobody would ever go in.

you damn near have to guess at the baseline at it is, let alone at the net. that is how hard the ball is being hit.

they don't hit like they used to 20 years ago no matter what kind of a racquet they used. now they launch themselves at the ball and attack with all their might.

only nadal hits off his back foot and 300 miles from behind the baseline.

and their movement is sublime. it shrinks the courts like never before. nadal was the fastest man alive on the court before he decided to f**k his knee up. there was almost no place to hit even if he did play 300 miles behind the baseline. he was strong as hell and he was faster the fastest cornerbacks in the NFL.

now nole and murray engulf the whole court in a second with their movement. so of course the ball is going to come back a few times.

if you people don't like the way the war simply must be waged on the tennis court in modern tennis then i suggest the following:

Jokes aside, I don't find anything hard to follow in modern tennis. In fact, it's mostly easy.Wonder why I stopped following WTA? Because every other player looked the same on court. Grinding and more grinding 'til the other one prevail. That's after Henin retired iirc.

I see that pattern in today's ATP. It's so easy to follow many matches that not even dramatization(match length) or entertainment(Monfils antics) can make it fun to watch. I just don't buy it. Same with NBA, there's a reson why I find European basketball much more quality.

Guys its just opoinions. When you say its a war out there in tennis and these are the greatest players ever with great defensive and athletic ability, I don't mind. But when I say I'm nostalgic about some S&V or offensive tennis in general, you are all in attacking mode because I said it.

I'm not saying every player should be offensive, I'd like it yes, but that would be boring for most nowadays fans just as watching grinding and last man standing tennis is boring to me.But all they have to do is to compromise a little, so that offensive players can benefit of their prime weapons.

Best of 3 sounds like a good idea because you'd lose all the drama and unnecessary drop in quality from time to time.In best of 3 it gets serious from the 1st point, the quality is insta present because there are no margins for errors.It's less errors for ultra offensive players and with less UE, you will instantly have better tennis quality.I really wish this wasn't the topic in modern tennis, but it seems, even as I'm old fashioned about many things, this is the only way to preserve the quality.

go follow bass fishing tournaments if tennis bothers the hell out of you.

attacking, all court tennis is the thing of the past.

they know a little more than you do. they play to try to have a career while you b**ch and whine about nothing.

the greatest attacking, all court player of the all time and one of the greatest ever to play the game has a losing record to a guy who cant play at all. all that fool can do is hit forehand and run like hell. its is 20-10. what does that tell you?

I should say that he used to be able to run like hell. now he wakes up each days to find new ways to get out of practicing and working on his game.

or he gets on his indoor hard court to finish off his knee for good.

at this point i have to believe that some folks---like those worthless, stink and hate infested rats at mtf--- really don't understand exactly how the war has to be waged on the court and why it has to be waged that way.

general lugburz seems to be the only one who understands what is the exact state of affairs.

general hunting can't explain anything to me. I have eyes. Also he can't explain anything without insulting. (mind that he insulted alex first in their convo)We like different tennis that's all. I'm not attacking your opinion or his for that matter.

I couldn't care less about any record let alone record about Federer and Nadal.

I don't care if any of the offensive players I follow, don't win sh!t, I'll still enjoy their tennis. To me it was never about winning everything, its what I wanna watch.

Why should I give up actually? I still have more than dozens of players who play tennis I like. There's Haas, Kohlschreiber, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Blake, Federer, Janowitz, Sijsling, Dimitrov, Gulbis, Mahut, Brands, Llodra etc etc so why should give up indeed?

Why does it trouble you so much if I prefer this tennis?I certainly don't mind or see any problems with the tennis you guys like, its just as I said -- not. my. cup. of. tea.